AHRON SHAPIRO

DON’T feel bad if Tuesday’s meeting between US President Barack Obama, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu left you confused. You’re not alone.

There was nothing organic about the meeting’s origins, no breakthrough that led to the summit, no last-minute progress that preceded this occasion. So why did it happen?

Like a shotgun marriage, Abbas and Netanyahu did not come together out of their own free will, but either under duress or — more charitably — as a personal favour to Obama, so that his Mid-East policy does not become a new source of criticism of his administration.
Following the meeting, Obama stopped short of announcing outright that negotiations would resume, but from every indication, it’s safe to assume they will.

Since it was Abbas, and not Netanyahu who had been setting preconditions for talks until now, you folks watching at home can mark this meeting on your scorecard as a win for Netanyahu — with an asterisk.

Obama could have sided with Abbas and held out for the total settlement freeze that Abbas was demanding before negotiations could begin. He did not do so, instead accepting Netanyahu’s offer of greatly reduced settlement activity as a constructive starting point.

The asterisk on Netanyahu’s win is that his goodwill with Obama comes with an expiration date. Obama must continue to see progress in negotiations, or Netanyahu will be in the hot seat again. That means more concessions, or else.

Obama is determined to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians on a timetable, although it is not clear how that can be successfully enforced.

There have recently been numerous unconfirmed reports that, should negotiations stall, Obama may look to impose a Palestinian state on the region within two years — whether the parties like the terms or not. This initial summit, which itself was imposed on Netanyahu and Abbas, has done nothing to discredit that possibility.